Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Technology and Group Decision Process in Going-Concern Judgements

  • Published:
Group Decision and Negotiation Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Accounting and auditing practices are continually being affected by advances in technology. This study empirically examined the effect of group decision processes and technological advances on group going-concern decision making. Groups with access to group decision support systems (GDSS) were compared to groups without access to GDSS for their going-concern judgments. The results show group discussion induced auditors to be more conservative and to consider factors which may have overlooked at the individual level, though neither structure significantly reduced the considerable variance in the individual going-concern judgments. Further, as compared to their counterparts in the face-to-face discussion groups, GDSS groups indicated much higher confidence in their group's final assessment of the client's going-concern status and a higher level of satisfaction and agreement with the group decision processes. The findings suggest that while group discussions did not significantly reduce auditors' considerable variance in going-concern judgments, future research should investigate which explicit models would improve the consensus on going-concern evaluations.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Abdolmohammadi, M., and A. Wright. (1987). “An Examination of the Effects of Experience and Task Complexity on Audit Judgments,” The Accounting Review 62, 1–13.

    Google Scholar 

  • Alker, H.R. (1996). Mathematics and Politics. New York: Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (1988). SAS 59: The Auditor's Consideration of an Entity's Ability to Continue as a Going Concern.

  • Asare, S.K. (1990). “The Auditor's Going-Concern Decision: A Review and Implications for Future Research. Journal of Accounting Literature 9, 39–64.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ashton, A.H. and R.H. Ashton. (1985). “Aggregating Subjective Forecasts: Some Empirical Results,” Management Science 31(12), 1499–1508.

    Google Scholar 

  • Benbasat, I. and L.H. Lini. (1993). “The Effects of Group, Task, Context, and Technology Variables on the Usefulness of Group Support Systems: A Meta-analysis of Experimental Studies.” Small Group Research, 24(4), 430–462.

    Google Scholar 

  • Campisi, S. and K.T. Trotman. (1985). “Auditor Consensus in Going Concern Judgments.” Accounting and Business Research, 15, 303–310.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chalos, P. (1985). “Financial Distress: A Comparative Study of Individual, Model, and Committee Assessments.” Journal of Accounting Research, Autumn 23(2), 527–543.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chow, C.W., A.H. McNamee and R.D. Plumlee. (1987). “Practitioners' Perceptions of Audit Step Difficulty and Criticalness: Implications for Audit Research,” Auditing: A Journal of Practice & Theory, 6 (Spring), 123–133.

    Google Scholar 

  • DeSanctis, G. and M.S. Poole. (1994). “Capturing the Complexity in Advanced Technology Use: Adaptive Structuration Theory.” Organization Science, forthcoming.

  • DeSanctis, G. and R.B. Gallupe. (1987). “A Foundation for the Study of Group Decision Support Systems.” Management Science, 33, 589–609.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dubrovsky, V., S. Yiesler and B. Sethna. (1991). “The Equalization Phenomenon: Status Effects in Computermediated and Face-to-Face Decision Making Groups.” Human Computer Interaction, 6, 119–146.

    Google Scholar 

  • Easton, A. (1988). “An Experimental Investigation of Automated Versus Manual Support for Stakeholder Identification and Assumption Surfacing in Small Groups.” Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Arizona.

  • Einhom, H.J., R.M. Hogarth and E. Klempner. (1977). “Quality of Group Judgment.” Psychological Bulletin, 84(1), 15 8–172.

    Google Scholar 

  • Einhom, H.J. (1972). “Expert Measurement and Mechanical Combination.” Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 7, 86–106.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gallupe, R.B., G. DeSanctis and G.W. Dickson. (1988). “Computer-based Support for Group Problem Finding: An Experimental Investigation.” MIS Quarterly, 12(2), 277–296.

    Google Scholar 

  • George, J.F., G.K. Easton, J.F. Nunamaker Jr. and G.B. Northcraft. (1990). “A Study of Collaborative Group Work With and Without Computer-based Support.” Working paper, University of Arizona.

  • Ho, J. (1994). “The Effect of Experience on Consensus of Going-concem Judgments.” Behavioral Research in Accounting, 6, 160–177.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jarvenpaa, S.L., V.S. Rao and G.P. Huber. (1988). “Computer Support for Meetings of Groups Working on Unstructured Problems: A Field Experiment.” MIS Quarterly, 12(4), 645–665.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jessup, L.M., T. Connolly and D.A. Tansik. (1990). “Toward a Theory of Automated Group Work: The Deindividuating Egects of Anonymity.” Small Group Research, 21(3), 333–348.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jessup, L.M. and J. Valacich. (1992). Group Support Systems: New Perspectives. New York: Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kida, T. (1980). “An Investigation into Auditors' Continuity and Related Qualification Judgments.” Journal of Accounting Research, 18, 506–523.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kiesler, S. and L. Sproull. (1992). “Group Decision Making and Communication Technology.” Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 52, 96–123.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kraemer, K.L. and A. Pinsonneault. (1989). “The Impact of Technological Support on Groups: An Assessment of the Empirical Research.” Decision Support Systems, 5(2), 197–216.

    Google Scholar 

  • Libby, R. and B.L. Lewis. (1982). “Human Information Processing Research in Accounting.” Accounting, Organizations and Society, 7, 231–285.

    Google Scholar 

  • Libby, R., K.T. Trotman and I. Zimmer. (1987). “Member Variation, Recognition of Expertise, and Group Performance.” Journal of Applied Psychology, 72(1), 81–87.

    Google Scholar 

  • Markus, M.L. and D. Robey. (1988). “Information Technology and Organizational Change: Causal Structure in Theory and Research.” Management Science, 34, 583–598.

    Google Scholar 

  • McGuire, T., S.J. Kiesler and J. Siegel. (1987). “Group and Computer-mediated Discussion Effects in Risk Decision Making.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 917–930.

    Google Scholar 

  • McLeod, P.L. (1992). “An Assessment of the Experimental Literature on Electronic Support of Group Work: Results of a Meta-analysis.” Human-Computer Interaction, 7, 257–280.

    Google Scholar 

  • Messier, W.F. (1995). “Research in and Development of Audit Decisions Aids.” In Ashton & Ashton (Ed.), Judgment and Decision-making Research in Accounting and Auditing (pp. 207–228). Cambridge: University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nunamaker, J.F. Jr., L.M. Applegate and B. Konsynski. (1987). “Facilitating Group Creativity: Experience with a Group Decision Support System.” In Proceedings of the Twentieth Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences 1, 422–430.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nunamaker, J.F. Jr., A.R. Dennis, J.S. Valacich and D.R. Vogel. (1991). “Inforfnation Technology for Negotiating Groups: Generating Options for Mutual Gain.” Management Science, 37, 1325–1346.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ruble, M.R. (1984). “An Empirical Test of a Decision Support System in a Group Decision Making Environment.” Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Arizona State University.

  • Sage, A.P. (1990). “Group Decision Support Systems.” In Sage (Ed.), Concise Encyclopedia of Information Processing in Systems and Organizations. New York: Pergamon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Siegel, J., V. Dubrovsky, S. Kiesler and T. McGuire. (1986). “Group Processes in Computermediated Communication.” Organizational Behavior and Human Information Processes, 37, 157–187.

    Google Scholar 

  • Solomon, I. and M.D. Shields. (1995). “Judgment and Decision-making Research in Auditing.” In Ashton and Ashton (Ed.), Judgment and Decision-making Research in Accounting and Auditing (pp. 137–175). Cambridge: University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Strodbeck, F.L. and R.M. Lipinski. (1985). “Becoming First Among Equals: Moral Considerations in Jury Foreman Selection.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49, 927–936.

    Google Scholar 

  • Trotman, K.T., P.W. Yetton. and I.R. Zimmer. (1983). “Individual and Group Judgments of Internal Control Systems.” Journal of Accounting Research, 21, 286–292.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wright, W.F. (1991). “Improvement of Financial Judgments Given Graphical Displays.” Unpublished working paper, Graduate School of Management, University of California, Irvine, June.

  • Zander, A. (1982). Making Groups Effective. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zigurs, I., M.S. Poole and G.L. DeSanctis. (1988). “A Study of Influence in Computer-mediated Group Decision Making.” MIS Quarterly, 12(4), 625–644.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Graduate School of Management, University of California at Irvine, Irvine, California, 92717-3125, USA

    Joanna L.Y. Ho

Authors
  1. Joanna L.Y. Ho
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Ho, J.L. Technology and Group Decision Process in Going-Concern Judgements. Group Decision and Negotiation 8, 33–49 (1999). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008686105218

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008686105218

Search

Navigation